In the immediate aftermath to the tragic murder of Joana Yeates newspapers up and down the country had but one suspect, her landlord Chris Jefferies.
For days Mr Jefferies was subject to the most lurid and false headlines anyone would wish to endure and had his reputation well and truly ripped apart, all for the sake of newspaper sales.
Whilst it might be hard to feel sympathy for a murderer there were two crucial problems with this coverage. Firstly if Mr Jefferies was guilty then this coverage could have made it impossible to convict him.
However, and more importantly, the second problem was that Mr Jefferies was in fact entirely innocent of such charges. Yet he still had to endure this media pack feeding frenzy.
As a result of this yesterday he won substantial damages against the newspapers who were guilty of treating him in such a dismissive and disgraceful manner. They were also forced to make public apologies to him today.
Various newspapers have printed those apologies online including the Daily Record, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror and Daily Express yet it's worth comparing this with stories when they were seeking to ruin and publicly convict Mr Jefferies.
A quick look at those online apologies provides a stark contrast with the original coverage; where once there was banner headlines and front page photographs now it is a small paragraph tucked away quietly.
Mr Jefferies has been awarded substantial compensation for his ordeal this is not simply about him but rather anyone else that newspapers will choose to falsely attack in their columns and articles.
Although each newspaper has played down their apology at least the high profile nature of this case means Mr Jefferies' reputation will hopefully be restored; however what about who suffer in a similar manner but in less well-known stories?
For such people being featured in a few newspapers complete with unflattering photo and other character assassination will not be made up by a small paragraph hidden away. So why should newspapers not be forced to make a much grander apology when wrong in this manner?
There has obviously been a lot written about media responsibility in the past few weeks but such discussions should not be restricted to questions about illegal actions rather newspapers' general conduct.
Courts or indeed the Press Complaints Commission should be able to compel newspapers to match any apology and retraction with the original coverage; if this mistaken story was on page one why not the apology too?
Doing this would ensure that anyone who has to suffer from press intrusion and mistakes would not then have to live with this stain on their character as people are unaware of any apology because of its minute nature.
And if newspapers complain and want to avoid such an approach there is a simple way to do this; stop writing stories with are either wrong or based on your guess work about what happened rather than facts and legal convictions.
30 Jul 2011
19 Jul 2011
How many groups will be affected by the NOTW fallout?
For a man who is in charge of the biggest part of the UK's media surprisingly little is known about Rupert Murdoch. That could change this afternoon.
As the latest high point of a developing saga Murdoch will be joined by his son James and ex-chief executive Rebekah Brooks at a Parliamentary Committee to answer questions about his media operations.
Given the growing hysteria and ongoing nature of this story expectations are high that it could be an explosive meeting. It's hard thus to avoid the feeling it will be something of a non-event!
However it is worth asking where this affair is ultimately going to end up, possibly with consequences ranging from the media to the Prime Minister himself. This surely will not be a non-event.
News International and the Murdochs
The most obvious people that will face some fallout are News International (NI) and the wider media too. For NI these events have already cost them the largest selling Sunday newspaper in the country.
Will this be the end of it? Possibly, although this surely depends on further revelations, today's committee appearance and what happens when people start going to court or even jail.
After sacrificing the News of the World the Murdochs must be sure the hacking, corruption, etc didn't spread to other 'papers like The Sun or The Times. Or at least be sure there's no way to prove this.
If evidence were to come out linking these 'papers (or even Sky News) to such illegality the precedent set by closing the News of the World would surely be a huge problem? Could other 'papers close too?
There is also a growing question - although surely unlikely - that this could ultimately cost Rupert Murdoch his media empire with investors in the USA complaining about his handling of this affair.
The media
The irony of the media's constant denigration of politicians is that most opinion polls suggest they are held in at least as low esteem by the public. Guilt by association here will only make matters worse.
It may not simply be association too. There is already other evidence to suggest illegality wasn't confined there, not least the fairly tame Operation Motorman report which implicated numerous 'papers.
Already there are calls - and worries - that this will ultimately lead to press regulation by the government, with the fear being this can only lead to a more private, secretive and corrupt society.
Ultimately this is something we should all worry about. Press regulation may limit some problems but will surely create others as it allows the rich and powerful some chance to hide from scrutiny.
Perhaps however some journalists understandably cautioning against this would have done better speaking out against their colleagues' actions over the years, whether illegal or simply salacious gossip.
If this affair achieves nothing other than forcing newspapers to stop the drip-drip of petty and irrelevant stories which permeate our national conciousness in favour of some more substance it would be no bad thing.
So too might the mirroring of Germany's 'right to reply' laws and regulations. Why should the media be able to run stories which may be proven false without any real fear of retribution from a toothless PCC?
Politicians including the Prime Minister
Of course whilst the media are most in line for this affair's fallout - and politicians have been doing much of the running - there is still a great possibility politicians will suffer too, in numerous ways.
The most high-profile is Prime Minister David Cameron. Having hired ex-NOTW editor Andy Coulson and being close to Rebekah Brooks he is closely implicated with the Murdoch empire.
More damaging however is the fact that throughout this affair he has been out-of-step with public and other media opinion, having to be dragged into taking what should have been simple decisions like launching inquiries.
All this creates an impression having something to hide, fair or not. Many are now speculating it could even cost him his place in Downing Street although this still seems some way off without new revelations.
Interestingly what few have spoken about so far is what this could eventually mean for those politicians that have lead the charge against News International - notably Ed Miliband - once this affair has eventually died down.
It's hard to believe that just as some politicians are finally hitting back at the media that there won't be repercussions, especially from News International who fill want to exact their own revenge.
As it stands the Murdoch empire is still very important through The Sun, The Times and Sky News. Might these groups work to ensure that Ed Miliband never gets the keys to Downing Street?
All of which means that as interesting as the Murdochs' parliamentary appearance might - or might not - be today, there is surely still some way to go. The fallout certainly isn't going to end with Brooks, Coulson and Hinton.
As the latest high point of a developing saga Murdoch will be joined by his son James and ex-chief executive Rebekah Brooks at a Parliamentary Committee to answer questions about his media operations.
Given the growing hysteria and ongoing nature of this story expectations are high that it could be an explosive meeting. It's hard thus to avoid the feeling it will be something of a non-event!
However it is worth asking where this affair is ultimately going to end up, possibly with consequences ranging from the media to the Prime Minister himself. This surely will not be a non-event.
News International and the Murdochs
The most obvious people that will face some fallout are News International (NI) and the wider media too. For NI these events have already cost them the largest selling Sunday newspaper in the country.
Will this be the end of it? Possibly, although this surely depends on further revelations, today's committee appearance and what happens when people start going to court or even jail.
After sacrificing the News of the World the Murdochs must be sure the hacking, corruption, etc didn't spread to other 'papers like The Sun or The Times. Or at least be sure there's no way to prove this.
If evidence were to come out linking these 'papers (or even Sky News) to such illegality the precedent set by closing the News of the World would surely be a huge problem? Could other 'papers close too?
There is also a growing question - although surely unlikely - that this could ultimately cost Rupert Murdoch his media empire with investors in the USA complaining about his handling of this affair.
The media
The irony of the media's constant denigration of politicians is that most opinion polls suggest they are held in at least as low esteem by the public. Guilt by association here will only make matters worse.
It may not simply be association too. There is already other evidence to suggest illegality wasn't confined there, not least the fairly tame Operation Motorman report which implicated numerous 'papers.
Already there are calls - and worries - that this will ultimately lead to press regulation by the government, with the fear being this can only lead to a more private, secretive and corrupt society.
Ultimately this is something we should all worry about. Press regulation may limit some problems but will surely create others as it allows the rich and powerful some chance to hide from scrutiny.
Perhaps however some journalists understandably cautioning against this would have done better speaking out against their colleagues' actions over the years, whether illegal or simply salacious gossip.
If this affair achieves nothing other than forcing newspapers to stop the drip-drip of petty and irrelevant stories which permeate our national conciousness in favour of some more substance it would be no bad thing.
So too might the mirroring of Germany's 'right to reply' laws and regulations. Why should the media be able to run stories which may be proven false without any real fear of retribution from a toothless PCC?
Politicians including the Prime Minister
Of course whilst the media are most in line for this affair's fallout - and politicians have been doing much of the running - there is still a great possibility politicians will suffer too, in numerous ways.
The most high-profile is Prime Minister David Cameron. Having hired ex-NOTW editor Andy Coulson and being close to Rebekah Brooks he is closely implicated with the Murdoch empire.
More damaging however is the fact that throughout this affair he has been out-of-step with public and other media opinion, having to be dragged into taking what should have been simple decisions like launching inquiries.
All this creates an impression having something to hide, fair or not. Many are now speculating it could even cost him his place in Downing Street although this still seems some way off without new revelations.
Interestingly what few have spoken about so far is what this could eventually mean for those politicians that have lead the charge against News International - notably Ed Miliband - once this affair has eventually died down.
It's hard to believe that just as some politicians are finally hitting back at the media that there won't be repercussions, especially from News International who fill want to exact their own revenge.
As it stands the Murdoch empire is still very important through The Sun, The Times and Sky News. Might these groups work to ensure that Ed Miliband never gets the keys to Downing Street?
All of which means that as interesting as the Murdochs' parliamentary appearance might - or might not - be today, there is surely still some way to go. The fallout certainly isn't going to end with Brooks, Coulson and Hinton.
10 Jul 2011
As ye sow so shall ye reap
The irony of the treatment dished out to Rebekah Brooks and others from News International these past few days is that it is obviously the exact type of attacks they previously excelled in dishing out.
In a competitive newspaper market many journalists are increasingly vicious in their attacks on the individual under scrutiny that day; it was never enough to report problems, the person's reputation had to be destroyed too.
The News of the World and other NI 'papers excelled at this approach; camping outside a person's house, phoning their family and friends, lurid headlines and the worst photographs they can find were just part of the experience.
All of this infests and indeed creates the society we inhabit. There has always been an irony in tabloid newspapers running campaigns against when bullying in schools when the example they set is exactly what they claim to loathe.
The treatment that Brooks, Coulson, etc are now receiving must be exceptionally difficult; losing jobs, facing jail, huge intrusion into their personal lives and the strain of being Public Enemies would wear down the strongest of people.
Yet as they were behind these type of attacks in the past they will receive little or no sympathy. The problem is that journalists doing this to them could well end up suffering the same way one day.
If the News of the World wasn't the only 'paper to take part in phone hacking and such like then there are surely other nervous reporters out there. Equally some of these people may leave the media and face this for other reasons.
Whilst sympathy for Brooks, etc won't be readily forthcoming, is this really the type of society we want to inhabit, one where people's lives have to be destroyed simply for a media story and some form of entertainment?
This is not to say that people that commit crimes or indeed make lesser mistakes should somehow avoid scrutiny or punishment. Quite often however the media's approach can be way out of sync with the actual transgression being committed.
Even if we do want wrong-doers to suffer, we can't avoid this hatred seeping into our own lives. In a media culture our behaviours follow that which we see and read, thus this culture of vilification makes its way into neighbourhoods and workplaces.
Obviously when talking about someone who has made a mistake at work or ended a relationship or just looks different we don't put their images out in a newspaper. But we do still talk about them in a vicious way designed to cause hurt.
Perhaps then it is not the media which is leading human nature, rather human nature which shapes the media. Numerous studies suggest that humans operate better in social groups using gossip as a way to better relate to their peers.
The media, newspapers especially, are just the ultimate manifestation of this type of gossip. In this regard the media really just reflects us all, albeit to an extreme extent. This seems depressing if true though, and too simple an excuse.
Like it or not, we are all responsible for the society we inhabit. So each time we act a certain way or allow others to do something we disagree with we grudgingly accept it. The same goes for journalists that tolerate an attack and destroy culture.
But like us all they will ultimately have to reap what they have sewn. We should all remember that the next time we take part in - or even just silently endorse - behaviour which could one day hurt us too.
In a competitive newspaper market many journalists are increasingly vicious in their attacks on the individual under scrutiny that day; it was never enough to report problems, the person's reputation had to be destroyed too.
The News of the World and other NI 'papers excelled at this approach; camping outside a person's house, phoning their family and friends, lurid headlines and the worst photographs they can find were just part of the experience.
All of this infests and indeed creates the society we inhabit. There has always been an irony in tabloid newspapers running campaigns against when bullying in schools when the example they set is exactly what they claim to loathe.
The treatment that Brooks, Coulson, etc are now receiving must be exceptionally difficult; losing jobs, facing jail, huge intrusion into their personal lives and the strain of being Public Enemies would wear down the strongest of people.
Yet as they were behind these type of attacks in the past they will receive little or no sympathy. The problem is that journalists doing this to them could well end up suffering the same way one day.
If the News of the World wasn't the only 'paper to take part in phone hacking and such like then there are surely other nervous reporters out there. Equally some of these people may leave the media and face this for other reasons.
Whilst sympathy for Brooks, etc won't be readily forthcoming, is this really the type of society we want to inhabit, one where people's lives have to be destroyed simply for a media story and some form of entertainment?
This is not to say that people that commit crimes or indeed make lesser mistakes should somehow avoid scrutiny or punishment. Quite often however the media's approach can be way out of sync with the actual transgression being committed.
Even if we do want wrong-doers to suffer, we can't avoid this hatred seeping into our own lives. In a media culture our behaviours follow that which we see and read, thus this culture of vilification makes its way into neighbourhoods and workplaces.
Obviously when talking about someone who has made a mistake at work or ended a relationship or just looks different we don't put their images out in a newspaper. But we do still talk about them in a vicious way designed to cause hurt.
Perhaps then it is not the media which is leading human nature, rather human nature which shapes the media. Numerous studies suggest that humans operate better in social groups using gossip as a way to better relate to their peers.
The media, newspapers especially, are just the ultimate manifestation of this type of gossip. In this regard the media really just reflects us all, albeit to an extreme extent. This seems depressing if true though, and too simple an excuse.
Like it or not, we are all responsible for the society we inhabit. So each time we act a certain way or allow others to do something we disagree with we grudgingly accept it. The same goes for journalists that tolerate an attack and destroy culture.
But like us all they will ultimately have to reap what they have sewn. We should all remember that the next time we take part in - or even just silently endorse - behaviour which could one day hurt us too.
8 Jul 2011
NOTW hacking: only the tip of the iceberg?
Say what you like about Rupert Murdoch but the man didn't become a media billionaire without ruthlessness and intellect. Yesterday's decision to shut down the News of the World is a perfect example.
For all the clamour of the past few days no-one had even mooted this possibility focusing all their efforts on key individuals such as Rebekah Brooks. It makes you wonder what else there is to hide if this is the best alternative.
The reality is that most people will not believe that this culture of insidious hacking and personal intrusion was limited solely to the News of the World or even News International; it surely goes much further than this.
Operation Motorman, an investigation by the Information Commissioner and the excellent Flat Earth News by Nick Davies both expose the type of intrusive tactics endemic across many newsrooms, not simply the News of the World.
The big question is what happens next. Shutting down the newspaper was clearly designed to also shut down demands for a public inquiry which could reveal even more problems. That surely cannot happen now though.
Given the precedent which has now been set to shut down a newspaper acting in this way, what happens if it's proven that another one did likewise, such as The Sun? At that point, if the pressure continues, would that go too?
Of course there are potentially other issues at play too. Most notable is the proposed takeover of BSkyB which was surely becoming impossible under the current wave of condemnation at News Corporation's door.
Does this mean that News Corporation think that newspapers as we currently know them are on the way out? This means they are happy to focus all energies on the TV and online markets, which they see as the future?
There is also the fact that the News of the World was now a toxic brand. It would be saddled with a terrible reputation and no advertising for the foreseeable future; better then to lance the boil immediately.
All stories have a shelf life after which they go away, either because there's nothing left to report or the public have lost interest. For all the storm taking place just now this will be the case for the hacking story too.
However it does still feel that it still has some steam left, which could only be added to if another newspaper was to be proven to have worked the same way too. One thing is clear, closing the News of the World doesn't close this story down.
For all the clamour of the past few days no-one had even mooted this possibility focusing all their efforts on key individuals such as Rebekah Brooks. It makes you wonder what else there is to hide if this is the best alternative.
The reality is that most people will not believe that this culture of insidious hacking and personal intrusion was limited solely to the News of the World or even News International; it surely goes much further than this.
Operation Motorman, an investigation by the Information Commissioner and the excellent Flat Earth News by Nick Davies both expose the type of intrusive tactics endemic across many newsrooms, not simply the News of the World.
The big question is what happens next. Shutting down the newspaper was clearly designed to also shut down demands for a public inquiry which could reveal even more problems. That surely cannot happen now though.
Given the precedent which has now been set to shut down a newspaper acting in this way, what happens if it's proven that another one did likewise, such as The Sun? At that point, if the pressure continues, would that go too?
Of course there are potentially other issues at play too. Most notable is the proposed takeover of BSkyB which was surely becoming impossible under the current wave of condemnation at News Corporation's door.
Does this mean that News Corporation think that newspapers as we currently know them are on the way out? This means they are happy to focus all energies on the TV and online markets, which they see as the future?
There is also the fact that the News of the World was now a toxic brand. It would be saddled with a terrible reputation and no advertising for the foreseeable future; better then to lance the boil immediately.
All stories have a shelf life after which they go away, either because there's nothing left to report or the public have lost interest. For all the storm taking place just now this will be the case for the hacking story too.
However it does still feel that it still has some steam left, which could only be added to if another newspaper was to be proven to have worked the same way too. One thing is clear, closing the News of the World doesn't close this story down.
7 Jul 2011
New media versus Old Media
The question of whether or not new media (Twitter, blogs, etc) is capable of taking on the established media (newspapers, TV, etc) is a well-worn one, mostly online it should be noted.
In reality - whilst it might eventually change - old media wins hands down pretty much every time, simply because of the resources it has. But that doesn't mean it can't be challenged from time to time.
The last few days have seen an explosion of stories regarding the News of the World's odious approach to journalism, targeting even the families of murdered schoolgirls and dead soldiers just to sell 'papers.
The News of the World is certainly the biggest selling Sunday newspaper and when combined with its sister paper The Sun is the most powerful media outlet in the UK. Yet even this couldn't save it from online attacks.
Even when the disgusting news came that the News of the World had targeted the parents of Milly Dowler for phone hacking the mainstream media response (with some notable exceptions) was initially muted. But not for long.
As it became clear - through sites such as Twitter and Facebook - that the public were genuinely appalled and prepared to do something about e.g. email News of the World advertisers, soon the whole of the media took the bait.
At this point it became the story of the day, with every 'paper and media outlet in the country forced to make it their top story. Everyone except The Sun obviously who still pretended nothing has happened until today.
Of course in all of this we shouldn't kid ourselves that this means the online community, new media, whatever you want to call it is now strong enough to take and replace the established media organisations. And nor should it.
This story still would not have broken without mainstream media resources and investigation (notably The Guardian) and it would not have been such a huge public issue if it were not for the publicity the mainstream media can create.
It's also worth remembering the numerous faults which exist in new media, whether it's lack of scrutiny or insane ramblings that any visitor to a newspaper message board will have witnessed (and again showing continued strength of 'old' media).
But what this does show is that the past ability of the mainstream media to completely dictate the news we hear is declining. It will also give some journalists a taste of the treatment they have previously been happy to dish out.
Ideally this will lead to a humbler mainstream media, more considered in its approach to news-gathering. In the meantime we could even settle for a media which no longer breaks the law whilst portraying itself as society's moral guardian.
In reality - whilst it might eventually change - old media wins hands down pretty much every time, simply because of the resources it has. But that doesn't mean it can't be challenged from time to time.
The last few days have seen an explosion of stories regarding the News of the World's odious approach to journalism, targeting even the families of murdered schoolgirls and dead soldiers just to sell 'papers.
The News of the World is certainly the biggest selling Sunday newspaper and when combined with its sister paper The Sun is the most powerful media outlet in the UK. Yet even this couldn't save it from online attacks.
Even when the disgusting news came that the News of the World had targeted the parents of Milly Dowler for phone hacking the mainstream media response (with some notable exceptions) was initially muted. But not for long.
As it became clear - through sites such as Twitter and Facebook - that the public were genuinely appalled and prepared to do something about e.g. email News of the World advertisers, soon the whole of the media took the bait.
At this point it became the story of the day, with every 'paper and media outlet in the country forced to make it their top story. Everyone except The Sun obviously who still pretended nothing has happened until today.
Of course in all of this we shouldn't kid ourselves that this means the online community, new media, whatever you want to call it is now strong enough to take and replace the established media organisations. And nor should it.
This story still would not have broken without mainstream media resources and investigation (notably The Guardian) and it would not have been such a huge public issue if it were not for the publicity the mainstream media can create.
It's also worth remembering the numerous faults which exist in new media, whether it's lack of scrutiny or insane ramblings that any visitor to a newspaper message board will have witnessed (and again showing continued strength of 'old' media).
But what this does show is that the past ability of the mainstream media to completely dictate the news we hear is declining. It will also give some journalists a taste of the treatment they have previously been happy to dish out.
Ideally this will lead to a humbler mainstream media, more considered in its approach to news-gathering. In the meantime we could even settle for a media which no longer breaks the law whilst portraying itself as society's moral guardian.
5 Jul 2011
The ashes of a free media
In a democracy a free media is a vital part of society, ensuring that everyone has the right to express a view and that powerful interests are kept in check by the court of public opinion.
For that reason we should always be wary of any attempts to limit this, whether in the form of censorship or any other legal restriction on reporting. That way lies problems for us all.
And yet this morning it's hard to think that there has ever been a more depressing time than that which the British newspaper industry faces with allegations of criminal activity and destroying innocent people's lives.
Yesterday the news broke that staff from the News of the World had been involved in hacking the phone of murdered school girl Milly Dowler. Not only that but they deleted some of her voice-mails to allow them to hear more messages.
Coincidentally this horrendous story broke at the same time as The Sun and Daily Mirror newspapers were being dragged to court over their attempt to effectively try and sentence an innocent man regarding another murder case.
Both stories are bad enough in their own right, the actions of people devoid of any morals whatsoever, driven by nothing more than a desire for readers, publicity and, ultimately, money. This really is humanity at its most depressing.
Yet what is equally concerning is the way many other newspapers have treated these two stories. In some cases they have not even covered them, or relegated them to minor stories, less interesting than two newlyweds going to Canada.
And for any apologist who seeks to claim that these stories (especially the Milly Dowler one) are not that significant let's imagine for a moment it had been a different group responsible for this hacking, such as defence lawyers or politicians.
Let's say lawyers for Dowler's killer had done it as part of their defence strategy or a politician had wanted the inside scoop and seem to be in touch with the family's views. This morning they'd have woken up to an unimaginable storm of outrage.
In fact this doesn't fully describe what would have happened. Their public lives would be destroyed as the national media invaded every aspect of their lives and offered them up for public revulsion and hatred. Yet not in this case.
Those journalists who (rightly) claim the government should not impinge on the rights of a free media have an equal if not greater responsibility to cover all stories fairly, not seek to hide those that may cause them personal damage.
This morning there should be national outrage over the disgusting actions of those in the media who felt that they were above the law. And yet the fact there is not such fury is evidence of delibrate attempts to hide the truth from the public.
This is relevant as the UK government decides whether to allow Rupert Murdoch to complete his takeover of BSkyB. If we cannot trust his newspapers to obey the law or report all stories, how can he be allowed to control more of the UK's media?
For some time now newspaper sales have been falling in the UK. Whilst there are numerous factors for this a growing belief in their dishonesty and irrelevance is surely part of the reason. And yet their decline will hurt us all.
If those that work in the industry want to save their reputation - and jobs - then they have a responsibility to prevent the type of deplorable behaviour we have heard about. They could start off by simply reporting it.
For that reason we should always be wary of any attempts to limit this, whether in the form of censorship or any other legal restriction on reporting. That way lies problems for us all.
And yet this morning it's hard to think that there has ever been a more depressing time than that which the British newspaper industry faces with allegations of criminal activity and destroying innocent people's lives.
Yesterday the news broke that staff from the News of the World had been involved in hacking the phone of murdered school girl Milly Dowler. Not only that but they deleted some of her voice-mails to allow them to hear more messages.
Coincidentally this horrendous story broke at the same time as The Sun and Daily Mirror newspapers were being dragged to court over their attempt to effectively try and sentence an innocent man regarding another murder case.
Both stories are bad enough in their own right, the actions of people devoid of any morals whatsoever, driven by nothing more than a desire for readers, publicity and, ultimately, money. This really is humanity at its most depressing.
Yet what is equally concerning is the way many other newspapers have treated these two stories. In some cases they have not even covered them, or relegated them to minor stories, less interesting than two newlyweds going to Canada.
And for any apologist who seeks to claim that these stories (especially the Milly Dowler one) are not that significant let's imagine for a moment it had been a different group responsible for this hacking, such as defence lawyers or politicians.
Let's say lawyers for Dowler's killer had done it as part of their defence strategy or a politician had wanted the inside scoop and seem to be in touch with the family's views. This morning they'd have woken up to an unimaginable storm of outrage.
In fact this doesn't fully describe what would have happened. Their public lives would be destroyed as the national media invaded every aspect of their lives and offered them up for public revulsion and hatred. Yet not in this case.
Those journalists who (rightly) claim the government should not impinge on the rights of a free media have an equal if not greater responsibility to cover all stories fairly, not seek to hide those that may cause them personal damage.
This morning there should be national outrage over the disgusting actions of those in the media who felt that they were above the law. And yet the fact there is not such fury is evidence of delibrate attempts to hide the truth from the public.
This is relevant as the UK government decides whether to allow Rupert Murdoch to complete his takeover of BSkyB. If we cannot trust his newspapers to obey the law or report all stories, how can he be allowed to control more of the UK's media?
For some time now newspaper sales have been falling in the UK. Whilst there are numerous factors for this a growing belief in their dishonesty and irrelevance is surely part of the reason. And yet their decline will hurt us all.
If those that work in the industry want to save their reputation - and jobs - then they have a responsibility to prevent the type of deplorable behaviour we have heard about. They could start off by simply reporting it.
